|
HCAL 533/2021
[2023] HKCFI 1204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 533 of 2021
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Suddha Gurung Sing |
Applicant |
|
and
|
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
Putative
Respondent |
|
and
|
|
|
Director of Immigration
|
Putative Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:
The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 15 April 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of a decision of the Immigration Department dated 7 April 2021 rejecting his application for asylum. Enquiries with the authorities revealed that the Immigration Department had not made any such decision bearing that date in respect of the Applicant; but had rejected his application for non-refoulement protection via its Notice of Decision dated 9 April 2018 (the “Notice”); and his appeal against the Notice to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) had been dismissed by the Board’s decision dated 16 September 2020 (the “Decision”). As the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) had never made any decision in respect of the Applicant dated 7 April 2021, the Applicant’s leave application may be refused forthwith for want of subject matter for review.
2. At the hearing, after the above background had been explained to the Applicant, he confirmed that it was his intention to seek judicial review of the Decision of the Board refusing his appeal against the Director’s decision in the Notice; but he no longer intends to pursue the leave application because it is now safe for him to return to his home country. Even if the leave application were amended by naming the Board as the proposed respondent and the Decision as the decision in respect of which relief is sought, it would be almost four months out of time. In the circumstances, it would be futile to amend the leave application. After re-confirming that the Applicant considers it safe to return to his home country and consents to have his leave application dismissed, his leave application is dismissed.
Dated 11th day of April 2023.
| |
( Allen LEE )
for Registrar, High Court |
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 5/5/2023
Suddha Gurung Sing
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil.
|
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 5/5/2023
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16528/19/11/86/N617
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 699/18 (Formerly RBCZ 2000308/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|